Review Checklist

A review checklist is useful only if it catches the real ways this package can drift.

For bijux-proteomics-foundation, good review starts by asking whether a change really belongs in shared meaning or whether local convenience is trying to promote itself to system truth.

Review Model

flowchart TB
    review["review proposed foundation change"]
    ownership{"shared meaning or local convenience?"}
    proof{"migrations and serialization move together?"}
    downstream{"downstream packages get an explicit path?"}
    approve["ready to approve"]

    review --> ownership
    ownership -->|shared meaning| proof
    ownership -->|local convenience| rehome["re-scope the change"]
    proof -->|yes| downstream
    proof -->|no| block1["keep reviewing"]
    downstream -->|yes| approve
    downstream -->|no| block2["keep reviewing"]

This checklist should catch the moment a seemingly small schema or serialization edit starts forcing every consumer to reinterpret the package on its own.

Review Rules

• ask who else consumes the shared meaning
• check whether the proposed change is truly shared or only locally convenient
• verify migrations, serialized forms, and docs move together

First Proof Check

• packages/bijux-proteomics-foundation/tests
• src/bijux_proteomics_foundation/schema.py and migrations.py
• src/bijux_proteomics_foundation/serialization.py

Design Pressure

The risk is approving a change because it is tidy in one package while missing that it quietly rewrites shared meaning for the rest of the repository.